please cite the precepts that I am missing
Forced monopolies cause a combination of the following. Services and goods fall in quality/abundance and rise in price.
Government has a forced monopoly on the services of justice and use of retaliatory force.
in the short term, a statist regime could malinvest resources into the defense industries to temporarily offset the anarchic advantage in efficiency.
however, the rationale for this thread is my question of :
what praxeological precept confirms anarchism relative to minarchism for providing societal wealth and security against external threats?
Why would malinvesting be good, and how are the ones I just offered not praxeological precepts?
Nope. People don’t have to allow threats into a society. However accepting property is almost the polar opposite of "unequivocally support the free and unencumbered exchange of capital, goods, and services across former national borders.–angurse
Wrong — in an ancap society a private property owner can sell to whoever he/she wants, including an islamic extremist if that individual or group is the highest bidder.
What? The property lines are borders, there would literally be millions of borders. Further, you don’t know what minarchy is, the government only has authority to protect from invasion (an individual buying property isn’t violating any borders) and protect people from one another, foreign people buy land in modern republics almost daily. You seem to be advocating a fascist state-- angurse
Wrong — within a representative government and minarchic society (if necessity dictates) in the name of national security, the government can restrict or prohibit sales to foreign nationals, period. Examples of this were the dubia ports deal and laws against the transfer of techonology to foreign states.
Within an ancap society, there are no such restrictions on direct foreign investment, trade, or technological transfers. Moreover, these transactions would be largely motivated by profit.
Well, the world still exists. However, you cannot name one society that hasn’t fallen either to outside forces or internal ones-- angurse
Wrong, the United States.
You’re critique of anarchism for being vulnerable is just as viable for states. All have been toppled.–angurse
Wrong, there are plenty of examples of large, relatively prosperous, technologically advanced, viable, secure, and functioning nations led by representative governments. There are exactly ZERO large, prosperous, viable, and secure anarchic states.
Praxeology, austrian theory derived from praxeology, and empiricism confirms this fact.
Lastly, there are exactly ZERO viable, large, prosperous, secure, and functioning anarchic societies.
More blatant lying.–angurse
ad hominen.
Why don’t you read up on them, all of them, before continuing make completely false assertions?–angurse
I did.
All of the anarchic “paradises” are either extinct or dependent on the whim of some statist government for survival. For example, if any exist, they exist within a statist framework that either ignores their existance or the statist regime could dismantle it in a few hours.
Btw, your icelandic anarchic society had a 1% tax, had a “volunteer” government in which citizens could not opt out of choosing a thain, degenerated into conflict and chaos from the machinations of a few Christian missionaries, and eventually begged the Norwegian king to rescue them.
"“In practice this meant that “each commune was a mutual insurance company, or a miniature welfare state. And membership in the commune was not voluntary. Each farmer had to belong to the commune in which his farm was located and to contribute to its needs.” [Gissurarson quoted by Birgit T. Runolfsson Solvason, Ordered Anarchy, State and Rent-Seeking: The Icelandic Commonwealth, 930-1262] The Icelandic Commonwealth did not allow farmers not to join its communes and “[o]nce attached to the local hreppr, a farm’s affliation could not be changed.””
““Therefore, the Icelandic Commonwealth can hardly be claimed in any significant way as an example of “anarcho”-capitalism in practice. This can also be seen from the early economy, where prices were subject to popular judgement at the skuldaping (“payment-thing”) not supply and demand.””[Kirsten Hastrup, Culture and History in Medieval Iceland, p. 125]
While your reading up on anarchist societies look up Capitalism (and minarchism), as anarchism doesn’t necessarily mean capitalism.–angurse
It does on this site.
for example, anarchism = anachro-capitalism = maximal capitalism on this site. the “anarchists” on this site reject communal-anarchism or any other hybrid of anarchism that is not based on the free market. And I agree with them. If you have a problem with this definition, take it up with olovetto, seiben, skyler, et al.
More lying?-- angurse
are these ad hominens necessary – simply because I offer a position different then yours does not mean I am a liar.
You aren’t obligated to sell if the price is right.-- angurse
Wrong, your premise is seriously flawed if you think that anarchic citizens will not sell to the highest bidder. MOreover, they wouldnt know or they couldnt be sure that they are selling to hostile sleeper cells. Lastly, depending on the good will of profit driven actors is naive at best. THis sentiment is probably why there are exactly ZERO anarchic societies in play.
The deficit spending statist-society just makes itself more vulnerable.–angurse
Wrong, I am continually amused by the anarchic fringe that they seem to believe that when/if an anarchic society emerges it will be populated by 325 million people and possess a GDP of $15 trillion in a fortnight, thereby making it immune to the machinations of the hated statists.
This is a presumption that challenges even the most optimistic prognosticators. For example, the notion that anarchism will metastasize into a overpowering behemoth overnight when we have exactly ZERO anarchic societies of worth or significance in play today – is not supported by either praxeology or empiricism.
Look up Operation Bernhard.–angurse
red herring
Operation bernhard was an unsuccessful counterfeit scheme. It has nothing do to with a foreign national purchasing private property in a legitimate transaction.
You don’t seem to understand the complexities of human culture, nor the commonsense reasoning of libertarianism. Aggressors don’t have liberties, people who are threatening are aggressors. How does the infiltrator, the man having cookouts on the property remain covert, how is any property owner covert, his name has to be on the deed.-- angurse
statist sleeper cells are not aggressors per se. They simply purchase land in a strategic location or center of gravity and refuse entry unless paid a handsome fee, rent, or royalty by an anarchic defense agency. Moreover, thousands of these sleeper cells could infiltrate an anarchic society with impunity. Until they execute their missions, they would not be aggressors and therefore not subject to any sanctions. IN contrast, foreign spies in a liberal democracy are subject to harsh penalties, even death, irrespective of whether they engage in any aggression.
You have poor reading skills.-- angurse
is it necessary to repeatedly engage in ad hominens ?
I asked you to explain why they would just jump to federal republic, and not a confederacy. Further, a confederation does not mean submission to a central authority at all, thats a federation, confederation generally means voluntary union, which is definitely anarchist.-- angurse
presumably, a central agency or authority would be formed to administer the business of the conferation. For example, I challenge you to name a confederation today that doesnt have a central governing authority. Moreover, anarchism rejects ALL central government.
No, they don’t. minarchism does not prohibit foreign nationals from entering or buying property in a country (nor are there eminent domain laws), you are thinking of fascism. – angurse
By any objective, rational, and indepedent thinking measure the United States is not fascist — yet our government reserves the right to deny foreign nationals from entering or buying property under law. In addition, the US COnstitution allows eminent domain. Note that when I refer to minarchism, it implys the ability of these states to adopt measure similar to these to insure national security. For example, a viable minarchic society that recognized an external threat would be unquestionably more likely to adopt these type of measures than an anarchic society.
Minarchism is not in ascendancy. Your standards are in descendancy.
For example, the notion that anarchism will metastasize into a overpowering behemoth overnight when we have exactly ZERO anarchic societies of worth or significance in play today – is not supported by either praxeology or empiricism.
So after claiming repeatedly that there are “ZERO anarchic societies today” and having been disproven, he has now added “societies of worth or significance”.
Retopper, can you qualify this lack of worth or significance of these societies by “either praxeology or empiricism”?
Reminds me of the story of the German bromine tycoon that tried to drive his American oppponent out of business by buying all of his opponent’s bromine. Haha.
I didn’t say they were. I’m saying even if they are lousy at defense, it does not mean the failure of ancapland.-- seiben
You are stating that just because a system is “lousy at defense” doesnt imply that it will fail ?!!
Well, its a very different world we live in now. I think that barbarians are capable of invading and conquering peaceful non-state agricultural societies. But in recent times, wars have always been fought between beligerant states, not against peaceful anarchist communes or peaceful states.— seiben
Tell that the dozens of peaceful states that the panzers rolled over. Tell that to all of eastern europe when T-34 rolled over these peaceful non-violent states. Tell that to bosnians, kuwaitis, georgians, tibetians, et al.
You’re basically predicting that there would be a war between peaceful anarchic societies and states, but in modern times there aren’t even regular conquests of smaller states by larger, more powerful ones. Why do you think this is?-- seiben
YOu make an accurate observation. The primary reason that there were very few wars of conquest after WWII was the soviet and American deterrence. For example, potential aggressors were deterred by the threat of retailation from either the USA or the USSR or both.
When the USSR collapsed, the USA was free to engage in offensive preemptive warfare (against destabilizing despotic regimes). Note the the USA still is the primary causal mechanism for deterring aggression by autocratic regimes against liberal democracies.
FOr example, ever consider why most of the US allies have tiny militaries ?
Pax Americana.
Why does germany not invade switzerland and enslave them? Why does china not crush japan? Why does america not loot canada for its rich coal deposits? Please figure this out, and you will see why states will not attack peaceful ancaps.-- seiben
Democratic peace theory
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.IS_WHAT.HTM
Note that I am going to start a thread on this topic soon. I have read some of hoppe’s seriously flawed challenges to this theory and I will soon debunk his misrepresentations and arguments against it.
E. R. Olovetto,
This is a logical fallacy called an appeal to tradition. This has been pointed out to you several times before. You’ve also been given numerous historical cases of societies with private law, and it just seems to go in one ear and out the other.
It’s noteworthy that even “public law” was developed, for the most part, privately, at least regarding property rights. These laws, developed privately, were integrated into public law. They were integrated because market agents were working outside of “public law”, and instead developing their own rules which made more sense and better protected their property. My empirical research includes cases in Feudal Europe and in the United States.
Have you read about Dutch maritime law?
So after claiming repeatedly that there are “ZERO anarchic societies today” and having been disproven, he has now added “societies of worth or significance”.
Retopper, can you qualify this lack of worth or significance of these societies by “either praxeology or empiricism”?-- olovetto
Indeed, irrespective of a few/if any tiny insignificant anarchic enclaves that exist within statist borders, the consensus by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure is that anarchism is a failed system.
nonetheless, if you have read the posts, I acknowledge that there are no negative a priori condemning the ECONOMIC viability of anarchism or minarchism.
However, economic considerations are not the only social pillar that insures a society’s viablility.
Hey Jonathan, I’m not sure what I was talking about, but you are right. On the subject read Hasnas’ The Obviousness of Anarchy.
Civil law still has elements compatible with customary or even libertarian law, but prescriptions tend towards purely arbitrary 5-10 year sentences or “fines up to $3000 per offense” type of stuff.
Minarchism is not in ascendancy. Your standards are in descendancy.-- caley
ad hominen.
Moreover, you have still not answered my question on whether or not there is a praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism ?
Ret, you in no way answered my question and your post is nonsense. What is a “negative a priori”? I don’t think you even understand half of the words you keep chirping, especially “objective, rational, and independent thinking”.
Why would malinvesting be good, and how are the ones I just offered not praxeological precepts?-- Jon
in the short term, the statist regime could “flood the market” with defense goods.
for example, a controlled economy could offset its disadvantage in effciency relative to an anarchic society by focusing on military expenditures.
the typical anarchic argument is based on the hunchism that the anarchic society would be huge or much larger than any statist cartel or consortuim?
again, this is pure hunchism considering that there are zero viable anarchic regimes in play and precious few examples in history. and most of these are flawed, impure anachro-capitalist systems at best.
Caley McKibbin: “Minarchism is not in ascendancy. Your standards are in descendancy.”
Rettoper, without reading through 100’s of posts, has anyone challenged you on this question? You support minarchism, yet, to use your own reasoning, where are all the miniarchist societies? Why didn’t the U.S. stay “minarchist”? How can any state reduce itself to minarchism when its natural tendency is to grow?
I do recall you saying that at first the U.S. must achieve worldwide hegemony, then eliminate all dictatorships (or at least the threatening ones). Then, after achieving this supreme power, the U.S. will reduce itself to a minarchist state. Is that how it works?
Ret, you in no way answered my question and your post is nonsense. What is a “negative a priori”? I don’t think you even understand half of the words you keep chirping, especially “objective, rational, and independent thinking”.-- olovetto
another ad hominen ?
a negative a priori is one that condemns a system. for example, the precept that condemns marxism:
— the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism —
the point of this thread is to examine the paradox of why so many on this site are anarchists, yet there is no praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing for economic prosperity and societal security against external threats.
it would seem that you dont understand praxeology since you have misrepresent or misinterpreted its tenets by your vehement and unyeilding belief in its efficacy unsupported by any praxeological precept and overwhelming historical and empirical evidence to the contrary.
Indeed the constant ad hominens are not convincing either.
in the short term, the statist regime could “flood the market” with defense goods.
for example, a controlled economy could offset its disadvantage in effciency relative to an anarchic society by focusing on military expenditures.
How? If you mean the state responds better to emergency situations than the market, take a look at Hurricane Katrina or similar events (e.g. Wal-Mart did a lot more here than the state can be credited for.) Moreover, a malinvestment is inherently an inefficient, negative outcome as it is one made at odds with the desires of consumers. It deprives other market activities of needed funds, and with no price signal to guide it, there is no sense of how much, or even what kind of defence is adequate.
the typical anarchic argument is based on the hunchism that the anarchic society would be huge or much larger than any statist cartel or consortuim?
No. More efficient.
again, this is pure hunchism considering that there are zero viable anarchic regimes in play and precious few examples in history. and most of these are flawed, impure anachro-capitalist systems at best.
Statist provision of “defence” is what is pure “Hunchism”. 
another ad hominen ?
Ad hominy you say? Suck it up.
I do recall you saying that at first the U.S. must achieve worldwide hegemony, then eliminate all dictatorships (or at least the threatening ones). Then, after achieving this supreme power, the U.S. will reduce itself to a minarchist state. Is that how it works?-- chloe
Primarily, the USA must eliminate statist abuses at home. I have advocated a rollback in the powers of the central government including a balanced budget amendment and the elimination of the “commerce clause” via Constitutional means.
Moreover, the USA cannot eliminate global autocracy via hard power alone. Indeed, the best means to democratize the geopolitik is by example, soft power.
What is the most effective path to minarchism, and perhaps anarchism:
democratic peace theory.
IN summary, I was disappointed to learn that many of the contributors to these forums are die-hard anarchists, despite the fact that praxeology does not explicitly confirm anarchism. Many possible converts are immediately turned-off to the convincing alternative offered by the austrian school relative to statism because of what the majority of entreprenuers, academics, technocrats, politicians, et al consider as fringe beliefs.
For example, the child as a commodity, torture and slavery as legitimate service industries, the rejection of copyright laws, no national borders, no restrictions on foreign infilitration, no final arbiter, no checks and balances on monopolistic defense agencies, et al.
Moerover, I have tried to promote this site, however it is sometimes futile when folks are ridiculed with ad hominen insults by what appears to be a very defensive fringe group mentality.
note that I value many of the positions offered by anarchists, however I am just relating to you what I believe is the mainstream opinion of anarchism.
In summary, a moderation of positions and the manner in which you defend them might be more constructive to achieving your ends.